ORDER The petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated th May, 2010 rendered by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Ref. No.40 of 2003, whereby the reference made to the Tribunal has been answered in favour of the concerned workman, namely, Sukhdeo Nonia, directing his reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. 2. The impugned award has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials available on record and has also not taken into consideration that once the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper there was no scope for interference by the learned Tribunal. It has been stated that in the domestic enquiry, concerned workman was found guilty of impersonation and he was found working in place of one Biraj Nonia. The Enquiry Officer after due enquiry found the charges proved. During pendency of the case, learned Tribunal decided as preliminary issue and held that the same was fair and proper. Once it is held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, learned Tribunal has, thereafter, no jurisdiction to arrive at a conclusion contrary to the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and materials on record. On perusal of the impugned award, I find that the learned Tribunal has discussed all the relevant facts and evidence on record and after due discussion and consideration has answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman. 4. Learned Tribunal has held that though domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper while deciding the preliminary issue, the finding arrived at on the basis of the materials, appearing in course of enquiry, is perverse and unsustainable. In course of domestic enquiry, a report from the police station was considered to be the main document in support of the complain, but the author of the report was not examined to test authenticity of the report. The said allegation was made after about 26 years of rendering service by the concerned workman by the socalled real Sukhdeo Nonia, but he did not come forward and examine in the domestic enquiry nor he was produced in course of hearing of the reference case before the Tribunal. 5. The said allegation was made after about 26 years of rendering service by the concerned workman by the socalled real Sukhdeo Nonia, but he did not come forward and examine in the domestic enquiry nor he was produced in course of hearing of the reference case before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration that from the very beginning the photograph of the concerned workman has been maintained in Statutory Register FormB, which is a record kept under Section 48 of the Mines Act. The photograph of the concerned workman, appointment letter, residential certificate, driving licence, ration card, caste certificate and service excerpts were admitted to be genuine by the witnesses of the Management. The witnesses have said that the said photograph and the records are of the man who had been working under the colliery as Sukhdeo Nonia. In course of domestic enquiry, those admitted documents in the public records were overlooked by the Management. 6. Learned Tribunal has concluded that in view of the above the Management was not justified in terminating the service of the concerned workman and answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman. 7. I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is any illegality or jurisdictional error in consideration by the learned Tribunal or in its conclusion. 8. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.